Opinion: Do you want a capable center-right candidate or a capable center-left candidate? That's the real choice in this election.

The U.S. Senate race in Arizona began ugly. It’s gotten uglier and will get uglier still.

That totally obliterates what is most important for voters to understand about this contest: Both Martha McSally, the Republican, and Kyrsten Sinema, the Democrat, have the potential to be highly effective senators for the state.

In fact, there is a model for each of the kind of senator that they might become. I would be bold enough to say that they are likely to become.

The senator Martha McSally could become

CLOSE

Voters should expect the race between Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally to represent Arizona in the Senate to attract a lot of attention going forward.
Arizona Republic, Arizona Republic

For McSally, that model is Jon Kyl, a three-term Arizona GOP senator recently appointed to temporarily replace John McCain.

Kyl is rare in that he mastered both the inner workings of the Senate and the substance of issues with which he dealt.

He was – and is – an in-the-weeds guy, diving deep into the details of policy, whether it be Arizona water settlements or missile defense. And for Kyl, then and now, the objective is to get things done, not just gain attention by speechifying or posturing, inside or outside the institution.

McSally doesn’t have the depth on Arizona issues Kyl had going in. But she’s bright, studious and industrious. While she shares the interest in exercising leadership on national security issues that both McCain and Kyl provided, she’s been a quick study on Arizona issues and seems committed to providing leadership on them as well.

In just two terms in the House, McSally has exhibited some adeptness at Kyl’s twin mastery of process and substance. She also seems to regard the objective as getting things done.

The senator Kyrsten Sinema could become

The model for Sinema is Dennis DeConcini. DeConcini was also a three-term Arizona senator, and the last Democrat to get elected to the post.

During DeConcini’s tenure, sometimes he was in the majority and sometimes he was in the minority. Regardless of which party was in charge, DeConcini managed to remain relevant.

DeConcini also mastered the details of Arizona issues. He was an appropriator and saw his job, in part, as delivering the goods for Arizona. This was before earmarks and pork got a bad name.

In a closely divided Senate, Sinema would likely be able to mirror DeConcini’s ability to remain relevant irrespective of which party held the upper hand. Her willingness to be a swing vote would garner greater clout in the Senate than it has in the House. Her brand of cheerful politics would wear well in a chamber in which personal relationships matter more.

And, like DeConcini, she would be likely to use that clout to benefit the state on Arizona issues. She’s also bright, studious and industrious and capable of mastering the Arizona portfolio.

Both DeConcini and Kyl had superb constituent service operations, available to all irrespective of partisanship. Either McSally or Sinema would likely endeavor to duplicate that.

Both are political pragmatists

Both McSally and Sinema are political pragmatists. This is best illustrated by their votes to keep the government open, resisting posturing votes on the budget.

This fiscal year, there have been six votes to keep the government operating. That’s a condemnation of Congress’ fiscal management, but a single House member can’t fix that. The question is whether to keep the lights on, or vote to turn them off to protest this or that.

McSally and Sinema each cast five votes to keep the government operating, giving in to making a political point only once. By contrast, the more ideological members of the delegation – Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar on the right, and Raul Grijalva and Ruben Gallego on the left – mostly voted to shut down the government.

The choice: Capable right or capable left

Which brings us to this depressing election. This real choice between two candidates both of whom would serve the state well is nowhere to be found. Instead it is demonization from morning to night.

McSally didn’t vote to cut off those with pre-existing conditions. Instead, she voted to subsidize them in another way rather than through the premium mechanism, which makes Obamacare policies a very bad deal for everyone else.

Sinema has a radical past. But she’s not conducted herself that way while in Congress. Whether this is from conviction or calculation might not matter. If calculation, the pressure on her to moderate will be greater in the Senate than in the House, since the state is more conservative than her current House district.

The real choice in this election is between a capable candidate from the center-right, McSally, and one from the center-left, Sinema. Arizona is likely to get an effective senator in either case.